Legal Reasoning

[...] That appearance of right was necessary the easier to rule the people, because no government can exist without the consent of the people, consent open, tacit or assumed. Constitutionalism and democracy are the modern forms of that alleged consent; the consent being inoculated and indoctrinated by what is called "education," at home, in the church, and in every other phase of life. That consent is the belief in authority, in the necessity for it. [...] Yet the State is nothing but a name. It is an abstraction. [...] To call the State an organism shows a diseased tendency to make a fetish of words [...]

[...] Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an "individual." The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that "rugged individualism" which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as "education." That corrupt and perverse "individualism" is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is "the devil take the hindmost." This "rugged individualism" has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. "Rugged individualism" has meant all the "individualism" for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking "supermen." America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as "unAmerican" and evil in the name of that same individualism.

There was a time when the State was unknown. In his natural condition man existed without any State or organized government. People lived as families in small communities; They tilled the soil and practiced the arts and crafts. The individual, and later the family, was the unit of social life where each was free and the equal of his neighbor. Human society then was not a State but an association; a voluntary association for mutual protection and benefit. The elders and more experienced members were the guides and advisers of the people. They helped to manage the affairs of life, not to rule and dominate the individual.

A similar kind of "critique" can actually be found in the work of some of today's scholars - yanno, civil society and stuff like that - looking at the civil society as key to defend against the State and the market, or even as an actual means to subvert authoritarian regimes, for that matter. As things are, unfortunately, today's "civil society" is nothing but a complement (or should I say, compliment?) to the State, when, in fact, the State does not precede such society.

Derrida said, "What I understand under the name deconstruction, there is no end, no beginning, and no after." He also said, "Since it takes the singularity of every context into account, Deconstruction is different from one context to another." Now, if deconstruction is different in different fields, then how is it different in different cultures? If there is neither a beginning nor an end of deconstruction, and if deconstruction is different from one context to the next -- then deconstruction must also have taken place in other cultures -- long before Jacques Derrida was ever born! To name just three: China, India and Japan. China's great deconstructive mind belonged to an unconventional, anti-traditional Taoist named Chuang Tzu. In a manner similar to that of Jacques Derrida, he played with words, in order to undermine opposites. Both are aware of the problems that language and signification create, and both use a playful, unconventional style of writing to undermine and subvert conventional meanings -- to create works that blur the boundaries between philosophy and literature.

Chuang Tzu said, "Where there is birth, there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right." Therefore, the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a 'this', but a 'this' which is also a 'that', a 'that' which is also a 'this'. His 'that' has both a right and a wrong in it; his 'this' too has both a right and wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a 'this' and 'that'? Or does he in fact no longer have a 'this' and 'that'? A state in which 'this' and 'that' no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Tao.

And what did he do with the great philosophical notion of a pure origin, and of the binary opposition between Being and Non-Being? He said, "There is a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning to be a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-not-yet-beginning to be beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not-yet-beginning to be non being. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-not-yet-beginning to be non being. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing.

In India, that land of snow-capped Himalayas and spicy, softly blowing breezes -- from the very dawn of their religion, thousands of years ago, the Hindus have been logocentric, believing that every form in the world is but expression of a sound -- it's name. In fact, the name for a holy Word is Brahman -- the same as the word for the spiritual essence of the entire universe. And the three major Hindu gods -- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva -- each have other names, and plenty of them. Hinduism is also phallocentric and phallogocentric. Millions of Hindus worship Shiva's phallus -- or lingum -- and it is in fact the commonest object in Benares. In fact, in Benares the lingums outnumber the inhabitants. Lingums are on view everywhere, garlanded with flowers, smeared with butter and drowned in waves of milk, honey, Ganges water and the holy chanting of Ommmmmm. In fact, according to Hindu myth, the holy city of Benares was originally nothing but an erect Shiva phallus! At first it was no larger than a stovepipe, and stood in the midst of a shoreless, humming ocean. Later this phallus spread out, till it was 10 miles across. Then, it kept growing until it was as large as the whole globe. The phallus of Benares is thus almost as great as mine, which is the Center of the entire earth!

There was a time in Indian history, however, when groups of yogis became skeptical of all this. From among all the phallogocentric seekers of truth and meaning along the great brown river -- the ever-rolling and tranquil Ganges -- from among the waves and waves of turbaned priests and Hari Babas, and Ramjab Babas and Omkara Babas reciting unceasingly the eternal names of God, there emerged sects of naked, long-haired or semi-nude wandering ascetics. And as they walked along the sands of the holy Ganges they carried tridents or spears in their right hands and their limp penises would sway to and fro. They began to question everything Hindu. In fact, sometimes they would eat the flesh of dead men or would meditate atop a corpse. And instead of chanting Om, and instead of seeking for Brahman -- the essence of everything -- they began to question if anything has an essence -- if Brahmin even exists. They questioned everything -- using riddles. And from among this group of skeptics emerged a young prince, Siddartha Gotama, who was to become known as the Buddha. The Hindus had believed that the soul or Atma was identical with Brahman or God, and that is was eternal. But Buddha taught that all things are impermanent and that there is no soul.

Buddha paved the way for Asia's greatest Indian philosopher, who was to be called "The Second Buddha." His name was Nagarjuna, and many modern scholars have found that his philosophy has much in common with Derrida's "deconstruction." He wrote about Emptiness, saying that anything that is Empty is devoid of self-essence. Or in Sanskrit what is called svabhava. The cup seems to exist all by itself, and not to be dependent on, or related to, anything else. But is this a drawing of a cup or of two faces? Or is it a drawing of both, or of neither? Perhaps it is just a two-dimensional series of lines! The important point is that we cannot see both the cup and faces simultaneously. Each image appears to possess svabhava or self-essence. Each image appears to be a self-sufficient, self-existent, discrete image. But they don't possess self-essence! There is an intimate, subtle relationship between the faces and the cup. One cannot exist without the other. They depend on each other.

wtf man - what does this has to do with l egal reasoning - maybe I am a bit dense but i just don't see any conection

socall, I don't think the poster you're quoting is "that" serious when saying what he's saying in the first place - you can easily notice his attitude when talking about the whole thing ..

creme caramel - I read carefully all your posts and I can understand where you are coming from! First I would like to point out that there is a very interesting post made on this board about "Indra's Net"

Buddhism's philosophy of interdependence lets us see our differences as a vast interconnected web. In fact, the image Buddhists use to illustrate this is that of Indra's net. At each intersection of the strands of this net, which is the universe of different selves, is a jewel -- a "self" -- which reflects all the other jewels in the net. No single jewel, then, is self-sufficient. Its existence depends upon, and reflects, all the others. And so, in Buddhist lingo, each jewel is Empty of self-existence!

There are several aspects of Indra's Net, as described in the above quote, that signify it as a crystal clear allegory of reality:

1. The Holographic Nature of the Universe

Long before the existence of the hologram, the jeweled net is an excellent description of the special characteristic of holograms: that every point of the hologram contains information regarding all other points. This reflective nature of the jewels is an obvious reference to this. This kind of analogy has been suggested by science as a theory for an essential characteristic of the cosmos, as well as as the functioning of the human brain, as beautifully described in The Holograpic Universe by Michael Talbot.

2. The Interconnectedness of All Things

When any jewel in the net is touched, all other jewels in the node are affected. This speaks to the hidden interconnectedness and interdependency of everything and everyone in the universe, and has an indirect reference to the concept of "Dependent Origination" in Buddhism. Additionally, Indra's Net is a definitive ancient correlate of Bell's Theorum, or the theory of non-local causes.

3. Lack of a substantive self

Each node, representing an individual, simply reflects the qualities of all other nodes, inferring the notion of 'not-self' or a lack of a solid and real inherent self, as seen in the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism and Buddhism in general.

4. Non-locality

Indra's Net shoots holes in the assumption or imputation of a solid and fixed universe 'out there'. The capacity of one jewel to reflect the light of another jewel from the other edge of infinity is something that is difficult for the linear mind, rational mind to comprehend. The fact that all nodes are simply reflections indicates that there is no particular single source point from where it all arises.

5. Innate Wisdom

The ability to reflect the entirety of all light in the universe attests to the inherent transcendant wisdom that is at the core of all nodes, representing all sentient beings, and to the inherent Buddha Nature.

6. Illusion or Maya

The fact that all nodes are simply a reflection of all others implies the illusory nature of all appearances. Appearances are thus not reality but a reflection of reality.

7. Universal Creativity

A familiar concept in various high dharmas is one of an impersonal creative intelligence that springs forth into reality through the instruments of all living beings.

8. The Mirror-like Nature of Mind

The capacity to reflect all things attests to the mind being a mirror of reality, not its basis. This is a common thesis among various schools and religions.

The universe as an enormous interconnected web at the intersections of which there are these "jewels," each one of them reflecting the other jewels in the net. Because each jewel does not have a real existence in itself, no single one is self-sufficient. Its existence depends upon and reflects all the others'. When one of them is touched, all the other ones are affected. Every jewel contains information about the others in the net. Moreover, there is not a single point from where everything else derives (horizontal, as opposed to vertical pattern). Each of every one of them is intrinsically and equally important to the whole. To top it all off, because all nodes are simply a reflection of all others, what we are dealing with is appearances, with them being not reality, but a reflection of the reality.

What would all this mean in "Western-world" terms? Well, what it first means is that, as individuals in a society we are better off prepared to understand ourselves and society itself if we see ourselves as parts of a bigger whole, being, as we are, on equal footing with one-another. You see, the forest, not the tree. Unfair distribution of resources globally, not the beggar.

Second, it means letting our 'selves' out, connecting with the other on a personal, emotional level, in order to come to self-realization, having understood our place in the big picture of the 'whole.' Listening more carefully to what our souls have to say, with each one holding thumbprint truth - because each soul is a complete, uninterrupted record of evolutionary experiences. Trusting our emotions, the intuition's messenger of truth, in order to come closer to fully understanding and being our 'selves,' without ascribing blindly to preconceived notions and beliefs. That way, we would be more self-conscious when revising, throwing away, or replacing theories as we see currently do, since discarding or replacing 'self' hurts and is humiliating.

Until 'self' is let out, until we become active participants, all-important - instead of half-important to the whole - we limit ourselves to the role of that objective observer, objectifying the human condition. It is only by connecting with people on an emotional level (empathy), that we can penetrate deep into their true 'selves,' having discovered much about our own 'selves' in the process.

One final point: among those who support the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence some say, it has an ethical and moral dimension. If one is to come and live this very life over and over again, one should try to live it in a way that one wants to come and relive it. That is, they tell us: "One should live it to the utmost, and without leaving anything regrettable." This sounds nice, and we would have nothing against it. In fact, some people might even be moved and motivated to live life to the utmost because of the ethical interpretation of this doctrine.

However, it is not even necessary to conduct a controlled social experiment to see how this doctrine affects the majority of mankind. A social experiment several millenniums old, is still going on. Just look at India, a country that has lived under the shadow of karma and reincarnation for the longest time. It is a nation where Brahmins, the highest caste, have systematically ruled and dominated the whole society and kept the Sudra or chandala, (untouchables) as their footstools, without any hope, or dream of salvation.

Fatalism, or karma, does not tell people to live life to the fullest. It simply states one must accept ones fate, unquestioningly, and live it. If one accepted this philosophy one would have to say: "If I have already lived this same life many times before, and there is nothing for me to change, why talk to me about living life to the fullest? If my previous life was lived to the fullest, I will live it to the fullest again this time. If I have not done so in previous lives, then there is nothing I can do about it now. I am totally powerless." This is the logical result of Eternal Recurrence, or what we might correctly rename as: The Doctrine of Despair, which reduces human life to that of a marionette or puppet, where the strings are forever held in the hands of fate, creating a total paralysis in the mind of the individual and society. So, from either the scientific, or the moral and ethical standpoint, this is a philosophy of doom, and there is nothing much going for this doctrine. It is a totally bankrupt worldview.

If one wants to teach Eternal Recurrence as a religion, fine. We will not object to that. But to present this as a serious philosophy is simply unacceptable. It does not surprise us that Nietzsche advocated this doctrine. He did not have much of mathematics or scientific training, which has proved to be his Achilles' heel. As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we don't believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking. If, however, he knew full well of the paralyzing social effect of this doctrine in India, and still advocated it, then this would further prove Nietzsche's evil genius. Since his whole philosophy was centered on weaving the myth of the "Superman" and the "Super race," to rule over the earth, was he perhaps paving the way and preparing a moral code for the rest of us, the chandala, to accept and live by -- Eternal Recurrence? This could perhaps, explain why he considered it as a very crucial part of his philosophy? In that case, he meant it to serve as the final nail that would hold down the lid of the coffin he created. History, however, bears witness to the fact that it was the very "Superman" and the "Super race" Nietzsche created with the myth of his philosophy that were buried in, and nailed in that very coffin -- Hitler and his followers.

Very good point, grasshopper - but I am not clear on one thing - if the ER has worked for Brahmins/chandalas, why didn't it work the same way with Hitler/Germans, assuming Nazis appropriated Nietzsche's doctrine as you say?

[...] That appearance of right was necessary the easier to rule the people, because no government can exist without the consent of the people, consent open, tacit or assumed. Constitutionalism and democracy are the modern forms of that alleged consent; the consent being inoculated and indoctrinated by what is called "education," at home, in the church, and in every other phase of life. That consent is the belief in authority, in the necessity for it. [...] Yet the State is nothing but a name. It is an abstraction. [...] To call the State an organism shows a diseased tendency to make a fetish of words [...]

Nothing funny, for sure! Although it can be argued that the writer is aware of the "simplicity" of the comparison (so to speak) and s/he is kinda mocking the reader when talking about the "creativity of the chimps," I tend to think that it is sort of an exaggeration to say that genius equals the "degree of variance from principle."

Give voice to the creative individual within, and contribute as born and meant.

Quote

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.We ask ourselves,"Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?"Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world.There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.

Originally from, "Our Deepest Fear," A Return to Love, by Marianne Williamson.

I mean it doesn't have to be that one is necessarily a genius (political genius if you like) just because you think differently from the rest of the population and you may want to make some kind of "revolution." Assuming the writer is trying to establish the power of individuality over the majority, there is nothing *genius* about it - it has been said so many times that power is derived from the consent of the governed, "Government derives power only from the consent of the governed"

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To me it looks like it's more of a "balls" issue, rather than a "genius" thing.

Indeed, the individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called "society," or the "nation," which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress. Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against "society," that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man's greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development. Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.

Emma Goldman maintained that individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth. The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an "individual." The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that "rugged individualism" which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as "education." That corrupt and perverse "individualism" is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is "the devil take the hindmost." This "rugged individualism" has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. "Rugged individualism" has meant all the "individualism" for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking "supermen." America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as "unAmerican" and evil in the name of that same individualism.

[...] But we must recognize the fact that such a society is incompatible with human nature. It is an "insane society," a "sick society." [...]

I'm not so sure as to whether a "society" can be called "insane" and "sick" - or calling "insane" an institution/group .. these are terms that can readily be applied to individuals, but it's kind of an abstraction to attach them to "groups" of people - for one, F. Nietzsche has said, "Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

Don't get me wrong, there was nothing sane about, say, Nazism/Hitler - but hell, today they won't call crazy even Hitler (and maybe he was not) - so you get my point .. People form groups and become part of institutions pricesely because they want to avoid being held personally accountable for things they do not dare to do on their own

Natalia is so funny throughout the entire movie - here it is another one:

Sally: I saw a film the other day about syphilis. Ugh! It was too awful. I couldn't let a man touch me for a week. Is it true you can get it from kissing?Fritz: Oh, yes. And your king, Henry VIII, got it from Cardinal Wolsey whispering in his ear.Natalia: That is not, I believe, founded in fact. But from kissing, most decidedly; and from towels, and from cups.Sally: And of course screwing.Natalia: Screw-ing, please?Sally: Oh, uh...[thinking]Sally: fornication.Natalia: For-ni-ca-tion?Sally: Oh, uh, Bri, darling, what is the German word?Brian Roberts: I don't remember.Sally: [thinking] Oh... um... oh yes!Brian Roberts: Oh, no...Sally: Bumsen!Natalia: [appalled] Oh.Brian Roberts: That would be the one German word you pronounce perfectly.Sally: Well, I ought to. I spent the entire afternoon bumsening like mad with this ghastly old producer who promised to get me a contract.[pause]Sally: Gin, Miss Landauer?

Hahaha - I found another jewel from Natalia:

Natalia: l am grateful to you that you came to me from my call.Sally: Don't be silly. l'm all agog.Natalia: Thank you.Natalia: You will eat food, please? Sally: Thank you.Natalia: You see, Fraulein....Sally: Sally.Natalia: Our acquaintance is not long, but l am choosing you...because l know no other young woman...who is giving her body frequently to men ... My English. l am rending you an embarrassment?Sally: No, no, l'm fascinated.Natalia: Fritz Wendel has declared love for me. At first l not taking this seriously. He is so... so formal. And also l think so much... the gigolo who hunts for the fortune. ls that what you say?Sally: That's what we say, all right.Natalia: Then... the night before yesterday... my parents are from the house... und we are seated here... upon my father's library sofa. Suddenly... he throws aside the formalities... - ...there is fire, there is passion.Sally: Oh, my God... he pounced!Natalia: Please?Sally: He made love to you.Natalia: On my father's library sofa. Und even for that he is showing no respect. l am fighting, l'm calling out harsh words... but then.... May we not be frank? Suddenly... all is... equal fire... equal passion in me. And since then, l think only of him. Now, is this love... or mere fatuation of the body? You with so many, as you call, ''screwings''... shall please tell me the truth of it. Please.Sally: Does it really matter, as long as you're having fun?Natalia: How can you speak of ''fun''? He has asked me to marry him.Sally: Well, that's wonderful. Why don't you?Natalia: And say to my father that l am marrying a man who is perhaps a fortune hunter? And a Christian, too. Oh, this l think is... breaking his heart.Sally: Well, in that case then, l guess you better just forget the whole thing. Natalia: Forget Fritz? How am l ever forgetting Fritz?Sally: Look, l really have to be running along. Don't cry. Oh, please, don't cry. l'm no good at all if anybody cries. Natalia, about Fritz pouncing... you see, l thought... l didn't think....Natalia: How shall so grave a problem resolve itself? Sally: Poor thing. You can't marry him. You can't give him up. l don't suppose you'd ever consider seeing him on the sly, every now... No, l didn't think so. My God, it's enough to drive a girl into a convent. Do they have Jewish nuns?

One final point: among those who support the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence some say, it has an ethical and moral dimension. If one is to come and live this very life over and over again, one should try to live it in a way that one wants to come and relive it. That is, they tell us: "One should live it to the utmost, and without leaving anything regrettable." This sounds nice, and we would have nothing against it. In fact, some people might even be moved and motivated to live life to the utmost because of the ethical interpretation of this doctrine.

However, it is not even necessary to conduct a controlled social experiment to see how this doctrine affects the majority of mankind. A social experiment several millenniums old, is still going on. Just look at India, a country that has lived under the shadow of karma and reincarnation for the longest time. It is a nation where Brahmins, the highest caste, have systematically ruled and dominated the whole society and kept the Sudra or chandala, (untouchables) as their footstools, without any hope, or dream of salvation.

Fatalism, or karma, does not tell people to live life to the fullest. It simply states one must accept ones fate, unquestioningly, and live it. If one accepted this philosophy one would have to say: "If I have already lived this same life many times before, and there is nothing for me to change, why talk to me about living life to the fullest? If my previous life was lived to the fullest, I will live it to the fullest again this time. If I have not done so in previous lives, then there is nothing I can do about it now. I am totally powerless." This is the logical result of Eternal Recurrence, or what we might correctly rename as: The Doctrine of Despair, which reduces human life to that of a marionette or puppet, where the strings are forever held in the hands of fate, creating a total paralysis in the mind of the individual and society. So, from either the scientific, or the moral and ethical standpoint, this is a philosophy of doom, and there is nothing much going for this doctrine. It is a totally bankrupt worldview.

If one wants to teach Eternal Recurrence as a religion, fine. We will not object to that. But to present this as a serious philosophy is simply unacceptable. It does not surprise us that Nietzsche advocated this doctrine. He did not have much of mathematics or scientific training, which has proved to be his Achilles' heel. As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we don't believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking. If, however, he knew full well of the paralyzing social effect of this doctrine in India, and still advocated it, then this would further prove Nietzsche's evil genius. Since his whole philosophy was centered on weaving the myth of the "Superman" and the "Super race," to rule over the earth, was he perhaps paving the way and preparing a moral code for the rest of us, the chandala, to accept and live by -- Eternal Recurrence? This could perhaps, explain why he considered it as a very crucial part of his philosophy? In that case, he meant it to serve as the final nail that would hold down the lid of the coffin he created. History, however, bears witness to the fact that it was the very "Superman" and the "Super race" Nietzsche created with the myth of his philosophy that were buried in, and nailed in that very coffin -- Hitler and his followers.

Very good point, grasshopper - but I am not clear on one thing - if the ER has worked for Brahmins/chandalas, why didn't it work the same way with Hitler/Germans, assuming Nazis appropriated Nietzsche's doctrine as you say

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer borrowed a lot from Eastern religions - here it is a related post by leadhu me token:

Nietzsche wasn't as impressed by Eastern ideas as Schopenhauer was. But some of Nietzsche's aphorisms remind one of Eastern practices, such as meditation; "Lying still and thinking little," Nietzsche wrote, "is the cheapest medicine for all sicknesses of the soul and, if persisted with, grows more pleasant hour by hour." "Thinking little" isn't as easy as it sounds. The mind wanders; it likes to occupy itself with something. India and China have developed a variety of techniques for calming the mind: meditation, yoga, tai chi, etc. These techniques direct the mind onto something simple and relaxing, such as breathing, walking, repeating the same word over and over, or slowly stretching and exercising the body. These techniques are becoming increasingly popular in the West due to their beneficial effect on both body and mind. Nietzsche's prescription — "lying still and thinking little" — could also be considered meditation; indeed, almost anything can be considered meditation if one concentrates on what one is doing. Listening to music, for example, can be considered meditation if one concentrates on the music. Often, however, people listen to music while doing something else — while driving, while eating, while looking at a magazine, etc. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." Zen says, "I don't think, therefore I am."

creme caramel - I read carefully all your posts and I can understand where you are coming from!

The universe as an enormous interconnected web at the intersections of which there are these "jewels," each one of them reflecting the other jewels in the net. Because each jewel does not have a real existence in itself, no single one is self-sufficient. Its existence depends upon and reflects all the others'. When one of them is touched, all the other ones are affected. Every jewel contains information about the others in the net. Moreover, there is not a single point from where everything else derives (horizontal, as opposed to vertical pattern). Each of every one of them is intrinsically and equally important to the whole. To top it all off, because all nodes are simply a reflection of all others, what we are dealing with is appearances, with them being not reality, but a reflection of the reality.

What would all this mean in "Western-world" terms? Well, what it first means is that, as individuals in a society we are better off prepared to understand ourselves and society itself if we see ourselves as parts of a bigger whole, being, as we are, on equal footing with one-another. You see, the forest, not the tree. Unfair distribution of resources globally, not the beggar.

Second, it means letting our 'selves' out, connecting with the other on a personal, emotional level, in order to come to self-realization, having understood our place in the big picture of the 'whole.' Listening more carefully to what our souls have to say, with each one holding thumbprint truth - because each soul is a complete, uninterrupted record of evolutionary experiences. Trusting our emotions, the intuition's messenger of truth, in order to come closer to fully understanding and being our 'selves,' without ascribing blindly to preconceived notions and beliefs. That way, we would be more self-conscious when revising, throwing away, or replacing theories as we see currently do, since discarding or replacing 'self' hurts and is humiliating.

Until 'self' is let out, until we become active participants, all-important - instead of half-important to the whole - we limit ourselves to the role of that objective observer, objectifying the human condition. It is only by connecting with people on an emotional level (empathy), that we can penetrate deep into their true 'selves,' having discovered much about our own 'selves' in the process.

This is just my wild guess you know - correct me if I'm wrong - but is this what you mean - am I really connecting the dots here?

For Jung, the mandala represents the 'Self' - another term that he borrowed from Eastern philosophy. This 'Self' is NOT what we ordinarily refer to as the 'ego', 'I' or everyday 'self' (without a capital 'S'), but stands in relation to these in such a way that when, during the 'enlightenment' of the individual, the personality shifts from its center in the 'ego' to its center in the 'Self', such a shift can either be understood as the attainment of a state of 'egolessness' or the accomplishment of 'Self-realization'.

Hardly a seamless monument!

When will these old blowhards learn that no matter where they plop themselves down, as long as there are just two of them they won't be able to say they are sitting in a circle? Even if you have nine lives to devote to finding a solution to this dilemma, it won't matter. One thing is for sure, though - they made us laugh so hard our insides fell out!

In their book Glassman and Fields describe it in the following way:

Quote

"Most people think [that spiritual self-sufficiency] involves building up a strong sense of self. But building oneself up - becoming the whole universe - really consists of what Dogen calls 'forgetting the self'... It's as if we become a point that has no dimension, but that point is the center of an all-encompassing circle. There's no longer any separation between us and everything else."

The visual figure that Glassman and Fields use as their central metaphor for 'realization' - the dimensionless central point that spawns an all-encompassing circle - is none other than the figure of the mandala! Plotinus used this metaphor to describe God. English poet and clergyman Thomas Traherne also spoke of a 'center' that 'surrounds'